MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHRISTIANITY

Paul-Erik Korvela

The question of Machiavellis relation to religion in general and to Christianity in particular has aroused much discussion. There are scholars who claim that he was a sincere Christian in private life and constantly distressed by the fact that politics appears to operate by rules very different from the ones taught by Christ. Then there are those who claim that he was an atheist who aimed at devastating the whole of Christianity. In previous research, his opposition to Chris-tianity has been often assumed but seldom proved or claried. This article aims to explore Machiavellis views on Christianity. Leaving aside the apparently insoluble question of his personal convictions,1 it will be argued that he nevertheless criticised Christianity for various reasons and thought that politics (or public ethics) is fundamentally incompatible with Christian ethics. His message was that politics (or arte dello stato) - when viewed from within the connes of a Christian Weltanschauung - is by nature always immoral. Hence, he does not separate politics and morality, but politics and Christian morality. As is commonly known, Machiavelli harked back to ancient Rome and its practices. The same methods were not used in his time, he thought, because Christianity had already carved men into its way of liking and made them effeminate and contemplative rather than virtuous and active. Machiavelli did not claim that it would be better for a society to eradicate religion altogether. Instead, he claimed that Christianity happens to be rather unsuited for a well-ordered state. Christianity contains some effective elements that were unavailable to paganism, and, when interpreted according to virt, it, too, could

183

allow virtuous action in Machiavellis sense. Nevertheless, he did not aim at some sort of reinterpretation or reform of Christianity, since it is hardly possible to interpret Christianity in such a way that it would exalt this life over the other. Machiavelli also evaded most, if not all, doctrinal questions when discussing the actions of the Church. In other words, he never went into details over theological issues.2

In the rst place, it should be noted that the Renaissance was a thoroughly Christian era. The view, held by earlier scholars, that the Renaissance was primarily pagan, is for the most part a myth. The whole project began as a rebirth of man, not of antiquity. The myth that there was a revival of paganism, supposedly the inevitable result of the study of antiquity, is often deduced from the attacks on scho-lasticism. Attacking scholasticism is, however, not the same as attack-ing Christianity. That there was anticlericalism during the Renais-sance is undeniable, but this was true also of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The difference is not one of degree or kind, but merely one of form and expression (cf. Ullmann 1977, 3). The humanists were able to present their views more subtly than the anti-Gregorians or the Ghibellines or any heretics, and their works are much better pre-served. What would have been more effective would have been ei-ther silence, a polemical ignorance of Christianity, or a full-ledged frontal assault (ibid.). This did not happen, at least not before Machi-avellis time. There were probably few real atheists and barely a few pantheists during the Renaissance, as Kristeller (1979, 67) has noted. Indeed, the artistic and literary productions of the period reveal no animosity against Christianity. On the contrary, most of the artists were inspired by religious motives, and when pagan themes did en-ter the paintings, the result was a strange mixture of Christian and pagan motives. Moreover, the interest in pagan literary productions was partly justied with the rather obscure notion of theologia poeta-rum, which allowed the recognition of Christian themes from pre-Christian authors. The real core of Renaissance paganism, if it must be called paganism, is the steady and irresistible growth of nonre-ligious intellectual interests which were not so much opposed to the content of religious doctrine as competing with it for individual and public attention (ibid.). This was, of course, nothing new, but during the Renaissance nonreligious thought attained a kind of equilibrium with religious thought. Christian convictions were either retained or transformed, but never really challenged. That is, at least, before Machiavellis time. The humanists who led the movement known as the Renaissance were, for the most part, sincere Christians and en-

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

184

dorsed the wedding of reason and faith. They attacked ecclesiastics not for their religion but for their lack of it. When Aquinas baptized Aristotelian philosophy, reason was made the handmaiden of faith. Not surprisingly, men like Dante were deeply interested in the ques-tion of the proper relation between the two. As the humanistic move-ment of the Renaissance developed, it became increasingly evident that it was reason that played the dominant role (Haydn 1950, xii). Ultimately the trend moved toward the rational or natural theology of the seventeenth century. It is clear, however, that for Machiavelli reason alone can sufce. His political theory simply lacks Christian explanations. It is not free from supernatural or metaphysical forces, but it is relatively free from Christian imagery - excluding, of course, the rhetorical level of exhortations etc. And, of course, Machiavelli never abandons Christian morality totally, since he recalls traditional moral and social norms by stressing the need to violate them.

Machiavelli and Christianity in Previous Research

Anthony Parel (1992) is among the most notable defenders of Machi-avellis paganism. He says, that taking all available data into consid-eration, then, one is obliged to conclude that Machiavelli is a neopa-gan whose aim is to paganize rather than to secularise Christianity, (ibid., 62). Given Machiavellis astrological assumptions, he cannot eliminate the heavens and Fortune from his analysis of religion. Parel criticises most of all Leo Strauss and Sebastian de Grazias ways of reading Machiavelli. According to him, Strauss attributes to Machia-velli what appears to be the principles of biblical criticism of a much later date, i.e. that the Bible is a collection of historical writings with-out any divine inspiration, and that any accuracy it may contain can be veried only in reference to other non-biblical sources3 (ibid., 60). Parel argues that what Machiavelli really wants to do is to attack Christianity on the basis of the principles of sixteenth-century astro-logical historiography, not on the basis of those assumed by nine-teenth-century higher criticism (ibid., 61). In Parels view, Sebastian de Grazia (1989) conates Machiavellis paganism and Christian the-ology when he tries to accommodate the whole of Machiavellis way of thought within the Christian fold. Christianity is not sufcient in explaining Machiavellis views, because a Christian conception of God cannot support the view that Machiavellian new princes are Gods favourites, but a pagan view of God denitely can. Similarly,

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

185

a pagan view of religion can hold that virt in Machiavellis sense is the highest fullment of religion, whereas the Christian view of religion cannot (ibid., 61). The God of Christianity does not depend on the heavens, Fortune and other astral forces, but since Machiavelli clearly believes in such forces, there is no real place for God in his cosmology. Another emphatic argument on behalf of Machiavellis paganism is Mark Hulliungs (1983) Citizen Machiavelli. According to him, Machiavelli, by stressing the need to conquer, divorced himself not only from the humanistic hype of the mirror-for-princes litera-ture, but also from the republican tradition. Hulliungs Machiavelli pictured a rigorous (pagan) morality of public life joined to a slack morality of private life. According to Hulliung, Machiavelli saw pri-vate life as a continuation of politics, not as an alternative to it (ibid., 104). He believed in the ubiquity of politics and that the same rules more or less apply in both private and public spheres. His comedies contain a didactic function for politicians, since e.g. seduction and conspiracy, womanizing and politicking, can be seen as related phe-nomena that operate on the same maxims.

I think it is relatively unquestionable that Machiavelli was not attempting to replace Christianity with pagan morality. Like Rous-seau, he was totally condent that once Christianity and the present way of living had already transformed men, it was not possible to go back to the state ante Christianity. But just because the fact that his sentiment on a given subject agrees with the sentiment of a classical author, does not follow that Machiavelli was guided in that point by the classics. The agreement may be a coincidence (cf. Strauss 1970, 7), or it can follow necessarily from certain axiomatic assumptions. By the same token, it is also relatively unquestionable that he did admire pagan morality in contrast to Christianity. Admiring and yearning to resurrect are, however, two different things.4 Machiavelli clearly also discussed the possibilities of using Christianity to political ad-vantage. Timothy Lukes (1984) is among those who have understood the importance of this. Clearly, writes Lukes, for Machiavelli, the value of religion as a political tool is in its ability to arouse extra-po-litical sanctions for wholly political operations (ibid., 268). In this sense, Christianity is even better than its pagan counterparts, since it lays somewhat more emphasis on the post-mortem punishments. It is clear that the religion he is longing for is not purely pagan. He thought that religion should be used like the ancients used it, but he does not demand that the religion in question should be the same as the ancients had. Resurrecting pagan practices is doomed to fail since

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

186

Christianity has already carved men into its way of liking. After all, Machiavelli himself writes that anyone who wishes to build a state will nd it easier among mountaineers, where there is no culture, than among those who are used to living in cities, where culture is corrupt (Discorsi, I/11). Numa succeeded with the Roman populace, because men were untaught and he could easily stamp on them any new form whatever. In a similar fashion a sculptor will more easily get a beautiful statue out of a rough piece of marble than from one badly blocked out by someone else. Nevertheless, Machiavelli says in the same chapter that though rude men are more easily won over to a new order or opinion, it is still not impossible to win over to it also cultured men and those who assume they are not rude, since Savonarola persuaded the populace of Florence to follow him even though many had not seen anything extraordinary to make them be-lieve him. Commenting on this passage, Lukes (1984, 270) argues that Machiavelli discovers in Christianity a facility to reshape deformed marble, a facility that is unavailable to paganism. The Florentines were neither untaught nor rude, but still it was possible to persuade them to believe that Savonarola spoke with God. Yet, it is also clear that the religion Machiavelli is longing for is not totally Christian ei-ther. Christianity may contain some effective elements, but its basic tenets are unsuited for a well-ordered republic.

Many scholars have argued that Machiavellis political thought is based on morality and stressed that this morality differs essentially from the Christian one (e.g. Berlin 1980). In the words of Quentin Skinner, the difference between Machiavelli and his contemporaries cannot adequately be characterised as a difference between a moral view of politics and a view of politics divorced from morality. The essential contrast is rather between two different moralities two ri-val and incompatible accounts of what ought ultimately to be done (Skinner 1978 I, 135). Indeed, sometimes counting the corpses pro-duced by alternative modes of action and resorting to pre-emptive strikes is very much a moral decision, if not a very Christian one. Detachment from Christian morality is not the same as having no morality at all. Skinner (2000) has also emphasised Machiavellis divorce from classical and contemporary humanism. Skinners Ma-chiavelli argues that, if a ruler wishes to reach his highest goals, he will not always nd it rational to be moral. He will nd that any con-sistent attempt to cultivate the princely virtues, especially honestum, will prove to be a ruinously irrational policy. For Skinner, the crucial difference between Machiavelli and his more conventional contem-

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

187

poraries lies not in the goals which princes ought to pursue but in the nature of the methods they took to be appropriate for the attainment of these ends (Skinner 1978 I, 134). Machiavelli agreed with earlier writers that the proper goals of a prince are to achieve great things, to seek glory, fame and honour, and to maintain his state. Whereas oth-ers assumed that the prince must ensure that he follows the dictates of Christian morality and cultivate all the Christian cardinal virtues, Machiavelli claimed that this would inevitably lead to the princes devastation among so many who are not virtuous. The only way out of this dilemma, if the prince is interested in maintaining his state, is to accept uninchingly that he will have to shake off the demands of Christian virtue, wholeheartedly embracing the very different moral-ity which his situation dictates (ibid., 134-135). The prince must be able to counterfeit the Christian virtues, to pretend to posses them, without actually resorting to them. Thus, for Machiavelli, virt de-notes precisely the requisite quality of moral exibility in a prince.

The most lucid argument on behalf of Machiavellis distinctively un-Christian thought is to be found in Giuseppe Prezzolinis Machia-velli anticristo, translated into English as Machiavelli (Prezzolini 1967). It contains very short fragments on various topics and, in general, it assumes rather than proves Machiavellis opposition to Christianity. Even though it contains a section dedicated to Machiavellis works, it fails to even mention Esortazione alla penitenza, a crucial text in this respect. Perhaps Prezzolini left it out intentionally, since the text is rather discomforting for those who think that Machiavelli was always very clearly opposed to Christianity. His blindness for certain texts leads Prezzolini to conclude that in Machiavellis writings there is no trace of a sense of sin, or of charity, or of love of neighbor. His motivations are always practical, realistic, earthy (ibid., 26). Machia-velli does, however, say something about these themes, especially in Esortazione. Besides, Machiavellis treatment of these themes is not opposed to his realistic or earthy motivations charity and love of neighbour are very important also from a more mundane perspec-tive.

Leaving aside its minor deciencies, Prezzolinis book includes a section called The Doctrine, which, in my opinion, is among the best introductions on the core of Machiavellis thought. For Prezzo-lini, Machiavelli is a profoundly pessimistic thinker who repudiates the relevance of Christian morality. Machiavellis complete honesty in this matter is one of the reasons why he is not popular: People are generally afraid of the truth, whether revealed by Christ or Ma-

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

188

chiavelli (ibid., 5). Prezzolinis Machiavelli is the founder of politi-cal science who upset the attempts to dene an ideal state in order to discover the real nature of states and how they functioned, and in this respect he can be compared to Galileo: they both taught that the universe, solar system for Galileo and history for Machiavelli, is indifferent to the desires and destinies of the individual (ibid., 6-7). In Machiavellis political theory, the force opposing the malignity of supernatural powers is virt, which exalts the Renaissance idea of man who is capable of carving his own destiny, as opposed to the Greek concept of destiny that crushes mankind, and the medieval idea of the will of God. Machiavellis virt does not correspond to the virtues of Plato and of the Stoics which became the cardinal virtues of Christianity. Instead, he uses the word more in the sense of dynamis (virtue of power) than in the sense of aret (ethical virtue). Machia-vellis virtue, according to Prezzolini, is opposed to dolce vita - that is, lasciviousness, sloth etc. and neither an effeminate or contem-plative attitude towards life nor simple barbaric furor are ever called virtuous by Machiavelli (ibid., 23). Machiavellis studies are based on the inapplicability of Christian morality to political life (ibid., 26) because he believes that recourse to evil in politics is necessary. Elsewhere Prezzolini (1970, 27) propounds: Machiavellis message is simply this: A stable social order among men cannot be maintained without resort to conduct which is condemned by Christian moral-ity. In my opinion, this is precisely what Machiavelli wanted to say, even though he failed to express it as lucidly.

Machiavellis Critique of Christianity

Machiavelli criticised Christianity as a whole, not any particular sect, nor any specic individuals. He was not criticising only the clergy or the Roman Catholic Church, but the whole philosophy of Christi-anity. His attack is directed towards nostra religione, educazione debole or questo modo di vivere (Discorsi, II/2) that is to say, towards Christian education or the Christian way of living in general. He does not specify his attack any more precisely than that. For some reason, it has been assumed that Machiavelli criticised Christianity primarily because the Church was keeping Italy politically disunited. That was one and very important reason, but absolutely not the only one. He discusses the matter in his Discorsi:

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

189

Abbiamo, adunque, con la Chiesa e con i preti noi Italiani questo primo obligo, di essere diventati sanza religione e cattivi: ma ne abbiamo ancora uno maggiore, il quale la seconda cagione della rovina nostra. Questo che la Chiesa ha tenuto e tiene questa provincia divisa. E veramente, alcuna provincia non fu mai unita o felice, se la non viene tutta alla ub-bidienza duna republica o d uno principe, come avvenuto alla Francia ed alla Spagna. E la cagione che la Italia non sia in quel medesimo ter-mine, n abbia anchella o una republica o uno principe che la governi, e solamente la Chiesa: perch, avendovi quella abitato e tenuto imperio temporale, non stata s potente n di tanta virt labbia potuto occupare la tirannide dItalia e farsene principe; e non stata, dallaltra parte, s debole, che, per paura di non perdere il dominio delle sue cose tempo-rali, la non abbia potuto convocare uno potente che la difenda contro a quello che in Italia fusse diventato troppo potente (Discorsi, I/12).

Clearly, then, according to Machiavelli, Italy does not enjoy the same happiness of being united like France and Spain because of the Church. She has been too weak to grasp the sole authority in Italy, but also powerful enough to keep anyone else from gaining that po-sition. Machiavelli is actually, ironically, proposing that anyone who wishes to test the ruinous effects the Church has, would have to be so powerful that he could send the Roman court to Switzerland.5 After a short time the evil habits of that court would do more to break down law and order in that region than any other event which at any time could occur there (ibid.). In his Istorie orentine (I/5), Ma-chiavelli continues his attack on the same grounds. After the division of the Roman Empire, Italy was in the hands of the barbarians. The provinces suffered because they had to change everything, from their names to their religion:

Ma, intra tante variazioni, non fu di minore momento il variare della religione, perch, combattendo la consuetudine della antica fede con i miracoli della nuova, si generavono tumulti e discordie gravissime intra gli uomini; e se pure la cristiana religione fusse stata unita, ne sarebbe sequiti minori disoridini; ma, combattendo la chiesa greca, la romana e la ravennate insieme, e di pi le sette eretiche con le cattoliche, in molti modi contristavano il mondo (Istorie orentine, I/5).

According to Machiavelli, most damaging has been the change in religion, because Christianity has created tumults in the world by combating old religion with new miracles. These tumults might have been rarer if Christianity itself would not have been disunited and divided into the Greek, Catholic and Ravenna Churches and numer-

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

190

ous heretical sects. Unlike Dante who opposed the Roman pontiffs on moral and evangelical grounds, Machiavelli opposed them because they had made Italians unbelievers and therefore incapable of form-ing a state. He reproved them because their temporal power inter-fered with the establishment of the national state (Prezzolini 1967, 33). Dantes main point, the fact that this temporal power is contrary to the spirit of Christ, is secondary or even irrelevant for Machia-velli.

We must also note how unenthusiastic Machiavelli was to engage in theological debates. When he speaks of the Council of Florence (1439), he says: In those times, there were differences between the Roman and the Greek churches, so that in divine worship they did not agree in every respect (Istorie orentine, V/16). It is probably im-possible to put it more laconically. When he continues his account of the Council, where temporary agreement between the East and the West was reached, he says that the Greeks were hard pressed by the Turks and judged that they could not by themselves make a defence, in order that with more assurance they could ask aid from the oth-ers, they decided to yield and attended the Council. As the result of many long debates, the Greeks yielded and made an agreement with the Roman Church (ibid.). Thus, Machiavelli detects the politi-cal interests behind the theological union which was more apparent than real,6 and evades the doctrinal disputes involved. Similarly, Machiavelli never made a single reference in any of his writings to Luther and the Reformation. It was only his younger contemporary, Francesco Guicciardini, who in his maxims said: the position I have enjoyed with several popes has forced me to love their greatness for my own self-interest. If it werent for this consideration, I would have loved Martin Luther as much as I love myself not to be released from the laws taught by the Christian religion as it is normally in-terpreted and understood, but to see this band of rufans reduced within their correct bounds, that is, living without vices or without authority (Guicciardini 1994, 171).

It has also been argued that Machiavellis primary target was the clergy. Criticism of the clergy is one of the distinctive features of the whole literature of the Renaissance and Machiavelli surely made his contribution to the genre. Boccaccios Decamerone, to take one exam-ple, contains an ardent criticism of the clergymen who are depicted as hypocrites and seekers of personal gain.7 Machiavelli knew his Boccaccio and he actually refers to him when he discusses the selec-tion of a new Lenten preacher for Florence:

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

191

Vero che io so che io sono contrario, come in molte altre cose, alloppinione di quelli cittadini: eglino vorrieno un predicatore che inse-gnasse loro la via del Paradiso, et io vorrei trovarne uno che insegnassi loro la via di andare a casa il diavolo; vorrebbono appresso che fosse huomo prudente, intero, reale, et ion e vorrei trovare uno pi pazzo che il Ponzo, pi versuto che fra Girolamo, pi ippocrito che frate Alberto, perch mi parrebbe una bella cosa, et degna della bont di questi tempi, che tutto quello che noi habbiamo sperimentato in molti frati, si esperi-mentasse in uno (Letter to Guicciardini, 17.5.1521)

Machiavelli was probably smiling ironically in the spring of 1521 when he was sent by the Eight of the Pratica (the council in charge of Florences foreign affairs) to a monastery in Carpi to attend a gen-eral meeting of the Franciscans to negotiate about matters concerning their monasteries on Florentine territory. In Carpi, there was a letter waiting for him. The Florentine Wool Guild entrusted him with an even more bizarre task: he was asked to persuade one friar called Rovaio to preach in the Duomo during the next Lent. This is strange, since Machiavelli was not very religious and in his plays he mocked friars in true Renaissance fashion. In his letter to Vettori, he tells us that he does not listen to sermons.8 Yet the Guild asked him to choose a preacher. It is no wonder that he rst admits being contrary to the opinion of others in this matter: the people would like a preacher that would show them the road to Paradise, and he would like a preacher that would show the people the road to Hell in order to avoid it. The people would like the preacher to be a prudent and true man, but Ma-chiavelli says he would like to nd a man crazier than Ponzo, craftier than Girolamo and more of a hypocrite than Frate Alberto. Domenico da Ponzo is a Florentine preacher, Girolamo means Savonarola, and Frate Alberto is a character in Boccaccios Decamerone (4/2).

According to Timothy Lukes (1984, 268), Machiavellis most ardent criticism of the ecclesiastics of his time regards their blatant politicisation and the unavoidable loss of popular support, which such hypocrisy necessarily engenders. The Christian leaders, in or-der to maintain their religious legitimacy, are forced by the tenets of Christianity itself to remain aloof from political matters. Machiavel-lis ancient heroes, on the other hand, had little cause to worry about such hypocrisy since their religion did not comprise any fundamen-tal opposition between the earthly and heavenly cities. For religion to remain a useful political tool, its integrity should not be doubted. In the case of Christianity, with its disclaimer of earthly pursuits,

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

192

an outward association with secular politics is intolerable. Thus it is inevitable that those responsible for the security of states that insist upon being regarded as Christians must be hypocrites (cf. Prezzolini 1970, 28). It is embedded in the nature of the stately matters that they cannot be run by true Christians. In politics, there is no viable alterna-tive to hypocrisy, and to condemn hypocrisy would be to condemn politics altogether (cf. Grant 1997).

Machiavellis realism, his famous verit effettuale della cosa, as op-posed to fantasies and imaginations is put forth in the XV chapter of Il Principe:

Ma sendo lintenzione mia stata scrivere cosa che sia utile a chi la intende, mi parso pi conveniente andare dreto alla verit effettuale della cosa che alla immaginazione di essa. E molti si sono immaginati republiche e principati che non si sono mai visti n conosciuti in vero essere. Perch gli tanto discosto da come si vive a come si doverrebbe vivere, che colui che lascia quello che si fa, per quello che si doverrebbe fare, impara pi presto la ruina che la preservazione sua: perch uno uomo che voglia fare in tutte le parte professione di buono, conviene che ruini in fra tanti che non sono buoni. (Il Principe, XV)

This passage has often been interpreted as a critique of idealistic po-litical philosophies, such as Platos Republic. Clearly, this is also a cri-tique of the kingdom of God (since it, too, is imagined and does not exist in reality, and thus belongs to the category of mai visti) and Christian morality in general. Loving ones neighbour brings ruin if the neighbours do not express similar love and according to Ma-chiavelli, this seems to be the case in the real world. The wise prince, in order to hold his position, must be capable of not being good when it is necessary (ibid.). In Machiavellis view, Christian virtues may sometimes be useful, but more often in dealing with other people they are a hindrance. The reason for this, however, is not that the vir-tues in themselves are a hindrance. Instead, it is due to the crooked-ness of others that the cultivation of Christian virtues seldom brings renown. Whoever wishes to prevail against the bad intentions of oth-ers must be ready to outfox them beforehand.

Furthermore, Machiavelli advises the prince to appear religious. According to him, it is not necessary to actually have all the quali-ties that are considered good, but it is very necessary to appear to have them (Il Principe, XVIII). In order to keep his position, the prince is sometimes forced to act contrary to truth and religion. He should hold to what is right when he can, but it is essential that he know

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

193

how to do wrong when he must (ibid.). The value of appearances derives from the fact that the multitude judges with the eye, not with the hand. Everybody sees what you appear to be; few perceive what you are (ibid.). Those who can look from a closer distance or touch, see even the devil with smaller horns and less black (Canti carnasci-aleschi, De romiti, lines 32-33). The epistemological point here is that those who can only see but cannot touch, are looking only at the re-sults. Therefore, if a prince succeeds in holding his state, his means are always judged honourable (Il Principe, XVIII). The mob (mean-ing the fools, not the lower classes) judges by appearances, whereas wise men want to touch by their hands.9

In Machiavellis examples, one contemporary ruler rises above others in his use of religion as a political tool. That ruler is Ferdi-nand of Aragon, king of Spain. However, Machiavellis treatment of Ferdinand is ambiguous. From the many references to Ferdinand in Machiavellis writings, we can infer that occasionally Machiavelli found his actions all very great and some of them extraordinary (Il Principe, XXI) and, on another occasion, he is more crafty and fortunate than wise and prudent (Letter to Vettori, 29.4.1513). In Machiavellis view, Ferdinand initiated many campaigns but saw the end of none of these; indeed, his end is not a particular gain or a particular victory but to give himself reputation among his people and to keep them uncertain among the great number of his affairs. He is, therefore, animoso datore di principii, spirited maker of be-ginnings, to which he later gives the particular end that is placed before him by chance and that necessity teaches him, and up to now he has not been able to complain of his luck or of his courage (ibid.). What makes Ferdinand especially interesting is his use of religion as a cloak of his acquisitions. In Il Principe (XVIII) Machiavelli refers to him without actually mentioning his name:

Alcuno principe de presenti tempi, il quale non bene nominare, non predica mai altro che pace e fede, e delluna e dellaltra inimicissimo: e luna e laltra, quando e lavessi osservata, gli arebbe pi volte tolto e la riputazione e lo stato.

Ferdinand preaches nothing but peace and faith, but is utterly op-posed to both. If he hadnt been opposed to these, he would have lost his reputation and his state many times, says Machiavelli. Ferdi-nand was truly very crafty in using religion to assist his endeavours. To examine the sincerity of converts from Judaism (called Marranos)

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

194

and Mohammedanism (called Moriscos), Ferdinand and his wife, em-powered by Sixtus IV, established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In 1492 he expelled the Moors from Spain and annexed Granada to his kingdom. Three months after the conquest, Ferdinand expelled the Jews from Spain and Sicily. These acts, however, were motivated less by religious concerns than economic and political ones. Ferdinand himself was probably not as intolerant as his clerical advisors, but what inspired him was the wealth of the Jews: the Marranos were often wealthy and occupied the highest levels of the Castilian and Aragonese nobility and of the clergy as well (Andrew 1990). The In-quisition was self-nancing as the property of the victims went into its cofns, and Pope Sixtus IV had to acknowledge soon afterwards that it was not moved by zeal for faith but by lust for wealth, and that many people were imprisoned, tortured and condemned as heretics without any proof (ibid.). For some reason, Machiavelli does not ac-cept these methods:

Oltre a questo, per potere intraprendere maggiore imprese, servendo-si sempre della religione, si volse a una pietosa crudelta cacciando, e spogliando, del suo regno e marrani: n pu essere questo esemplo pi miserabile n pi raro. (Il Principe, XXI)

Ferdinands hunt of the Marranos is depicted as pious cruelty, of which there cannot be a more miserable or rare example. Why would Machiavelli consider this as a miserable example? In fact, early translators of Machiavelli translated the passage so that the example was admirable or woonderful and rare, not miserable (cf. An-drew 1990, 413), and some of the modern translations I have con-sulted say that the example was admirable.10 The passage would certainly make much more sense if the word in question would be mirabile instead of miserabile. On the other hand, the chapter ends with a description of the wise princes methods, and Machia-vellis wise prince encourages citizens to carry on their businesses, and governs so that a citizen is not afraid to increase his possessions because of dread that they will be taken away. This is precisely what Ferdinand did for the Moors and the Marranos, and in this respect his pious cruelty could be considered miserable in Machiavellis view. Perhaps Machiavelli does not appreciate Ferdinand because the king was motivated not by the common good but by his personal gain. It would seem plausible that Machiavelli opposes the crafty use of religion when it is done in order to gain wealth or other personal

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

195

advantages (which is what most of the priests did according to him and many other Renaissance writers), but not when it is done for the glory of the patria. After all, he says in the Discorsi (III/41) that la pa-tria bene difesa in qualunque modo la si defende, o con ignominia o con gloria, i.e. that the fatherland is well defended in whatever way she is defended, whether with disgrace or with glory.

In Machiavellis view the function of religion is primarily social unication of a people or a military unit (see e.g. L Asino d Oro, 5, lines 118-122; Discorsi, III/33; Arte della guerra, IV). Religion is useful to lawgivers, founders, and army generals, but also acts as a cloak for bad men (Letter to Guicciardini, 17.5.1521) who can with the assis-tance of religion deceive more easily (Istorie orentine, III/5). Using ancient Rome as an example he describes the wise use of religion in government: Thus he who examines Roman history well sees how helpful religion was in controlling the armies, in inspiring the peo-ple, in keeping men good, in making the wicked ashamed (Discorsi, I/11). According to Machiavelli, it is irrelevant whether religion is true or not as long as the leaders keep it up: It is the duty, then, of the rulers of a republic or of a kingdom to preserve the founda-tions of the religion they hold. If they do this, it will be an easy thing for them to keep their state religious, and consequently good and united. Also whatever comes up in favour of religion, even if they think it false, they are to accept and magnify (Discorsi, I/12). His rec-ommendation for the political use of religion goes even further. He instructs the leaders to interpret religion according to circumstances, i.e. for their own benet (cf. e.g. Discorsi, I/14&15; Najemy 1999). In a similar fashion, he tells how the ancient generals interpreted the bad signs of the augurs as well as using accidents to their own advantage: Caesar, falling in Africa as he left his ship, said: Africa, I seize you (Arte della Guerra, VI). Because soldiers were superstitious, the falling of their leader might have been interpreted as a bad omen, which, in turn, might have decreased the morale. Thus, it was necessary for Caesar to act as if he fell on his knees deliberately. According to Ma-chiavelli, religion should not be disparaged even if false, since the truth of a religion has no viable connection with its power, with its effect on men. He never speaks of true and false prophets, only of the armed and the unarmed, the successful and the unsuccessful.

For Machiavelli, religion could also instil love of liberty in a peo-ple. Where the fear of God is missing, he argued, it is sometimes pos-sible to replace it with the fear of a prince (Discorsi, I/11; Strauss 1986, 226), but in republics, fear of God is indispensable. Nevertheless, it

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

196

does not follow that religion alone could sufce: there should be no one with so small a brain that he will believe, if his house is falling, that God will save it without any other prop, because he will die be-neath that ruin (L Asino dOro, ch. 5, lines 124-127). For Machiavelli religion demanded scrupulous attention, but its importance was due to the effect it has on men, not to its metaphysical or extra-political truths.

This is the right use of religion in Machiavellis view, but the rul-ers, or the Holy See, were not using religion as wisely. In contrast to ancient religion, Christianity favours contemplation, withdrawal, humility, and other such apolitical virtues. Christian doctrine exhorts people to live this life as if it were only a preparation for the next one, meaning eternal life after death (John 12:25). In his Discorsi Machia-velli writes:

Pensando dunque donde possa nascere, che, in quegli tempi antichi, i popoli fossero pi amatori della libert che in questi; credo nasca da quella medesima cagione che fa ora gli uomini manco forti: la quale credo sia la diversit della educazione nostra dallantica, fondata nella diversit della religione nostra dallantica. Perch, avendoci la nostra religione mostro la verit e la vera via, ci fa stimare meno lonore del mondo: onde i Gentili, stimandolo assai, ed avendo posto in quello il sommo bene, erano nelle azioni loro pi feroci. (Discorsi, II/2)

Machiavelli blames Christianity, or its false interpretations, for glori-cation of contemplative life instead of the active one. This glorica-tion of cloistered metaphysicians instead of virtuous political leaders has some severe implications concerning the republican ideal:

Questo modo di vivere, adunque, pare che abbi renduto il mondo debo-le, e datolo in preda agli uomini scelerati; i quali sicuramente lo possono maneggiare, veggendo come luniversit degli uomini, per andarne in Paradiso, pensa pi a sopportare le sue battiture che a vendicarle. E ben-ch paia che si sia effeminato il mondo, e disarmato il Cielo, nasce pi sanza dubbio dalla vilt degli uomini, che hanno interpretato la nostra religione secondo lozio, e non secondo la virt. (Discorsi, II/2)

Because men are more interested in going to Paradise than avenging their injuries, the world has grown effeminate and Heaven has laid aside her arms. This, in turn, is the fault of those who have inter-preted Christianity according to sloth and not according to virt.

What, then, would be Christianity interpreted correctly, secondo la virt? As Counter-Reformation and anti-Machiavellism gathered im-

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

197

petus, various adversaries of Machiavelli took some effort in proving that Christianity can indeed be interpreted also vigorously and that it is not incompatible with military valour. Some of them pointed to Charlemagne and his empire, or to Emperor Constantine. If we think about the political history of Christendom, we surely can nd at least one example when the whole Respublica cristiana has been united in doing something vigorous namely the Crusades. Is Machiavellis ideal Christianity to be found in the religious fervour of the Crusad-ers? If we look at his comments on the Crusades, this seems to be the case. One of his carnival songs (Degli spiriti beati) discusses the issue directly and exhorts Christians to forget their internal contests and to gather forces against Il signor di Turchia. In Istorie orentine (I/17), he gives a general account of the Crusades, concluding that many kings and many states joined in contributing money for it, and many individuals without pay served as soldiers so powerful then in the minds of men was religion, when they were moved by the examples of her leaders. Boniface VIIIs proclamation of a Crusade against the Colonna family, according to Machiavelli, injured the Church be-cause that weapon, after it was turned through the Popes personal ambition against Christians, began to stop cutting (Istorie orentine, I/25).11 Religion used effectively is one that moves men, one that makes them act and wage war on indels. Religion well-used and the fear of divine punishments made every sort of undertaking easy for the ancient generals, and always will make them so, where religion is feared and observed (Arte della Guerra, IV). It is easy to make men believe in victory if leaders pretend that God has promised them one. In the time of our fathers, writes Machiavelli, Charles VII, King of France, in the war that he made against the English, said that he took counsel with a girl sent by God, who was called everywhere the Maid of France; and this was the cause of his victory (ibid.). This is Chris-tianity secondo la virt. In Joan of Arc and the Crusades, Machiavelli nds an armed prophet and Christianity used effectively. Whatever the truth-value of Joans visions, she nevertheless inspired others to act according to virt.

Dante and Machiavelli, two great Florentines, both feel strange approval towards Averroist doctrines. In the Commedia, Dante places Averroes in Limbo (Inf., canto IV) and Sieger of Brabant in Paradise (Par., canto X) even though both were clearly condemned by the Church. Besides, since Dante puts his eulogy to Sieger in the mouth of his main enemy (i.e. Aquinas) one can infer that Dante was inten-tionally being polemic with the Church and ironic in regard to the

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

198

Dominican intellectual tradition (Forte 2000, 17).12 Machiavelli, on the other hand, made a curious leap into philosophy in the middle of Discorsi, when he suddenly seems to defend the eternity of the world and the periodical alteration of religions:

A queqli loso che hanno voluto che il mondo sia stato eterno, credo che si potesse replicare che, se tanta antichit fusse vera, e sarebbe ragio-nevole che ci fussi memoria di pi che cinquemila anni; quando e non si vedesse come queste memorie de tempi per diverse cagioni si spengano: delle quali, parte vengono dagli uomini, parte al cielo. (Discorsi, II/5)

The passage begins with an attack on those philosophers who have held that the world is eternal. This means the Averroists, and behind them, Aristotle. To them Machiavelli poses an objection, but as Mans-eld (1979, 203) notes, as soon as it has left his mouth he calls it back with a counterobjection, which actually constitutes a reply to those who deny the world is eternal. He says that if the world would be eternal, there would be records dating back more than ve thousand years, but immediately afterwards he repudiates this by saying that these records disappear at regular intervals partly because of men and partly because of heaven. The matter discussed here is of no little importance. Machiavellis position undermines the creationist doc-trine, as well as the pretended speciality of Christianity in contrast to other sects. Should the world be eternal, there would be no efcient cause of the world. In fact, the Averroists claimed that God is not the efcient but the nal cause of the world. Does Machiavelli sloppily re-pudiate the whole teaching of Christianity in one sentence, or is there something else to this passage? Forte thinks that he was also (or even primarily) exposing his assumptions that the arguments against the doctrine of the eternity of the world were not convincing. He might have been thinking of the objections to the eternity of the world put forth in Lucretius De rerum naturam, St. Augustines De civitate Dei, Petrarchs De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia, or even Savonarolas Triumphus crucis (Forte 2000, 17). Yet, he might have just felt sympa-thy for the Averroists. The fundamental tenets of Averroism were as well known to intelligent men of Machiavellis age as the fundamen-tal tenets of Marxism are in the present age, as Strauss (1958, 202-203) has noted. For Machiavelli, all religions are of human, not heavenly, origin. He often uses the term sect for religion, in which usage he treads the paths of the Averroists, who as philosophers refused to make any concessions to revealed religion (Strauss 1986, 226). Ma-

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

199

chiavellis passage continues with another very unorthodox theory regarding the alteration of religious sects:

Quelle che vengono dagli uomini sono le variazioni delle stte e delle lingue. Perch, quando e surge una setta nuova, cio una religione nu-ova, il primo studio suo , per darsi riputazione, estinguere la vecchia da credere, pertanto, che quello che ha voluto fare la setta Cristiana contro alla setta Gentile, la Gentile abbia fatto contro a quella che era in-nanzi a lei. E perch queste stte in cinque o in seimila anni variano due o tre volte, si perde la memoria delle cose fatte innanzi a quel tempo. (Discorsi, II/5)

According to him, new religions try to extinguish the memory of the old, as Christianity has done to Paganism and Paganism probably did to the ones preceding it. We have lost records of those older al-terations because these sects have changed two or three times in 5000 or 6000 years. Every sect, then, has the life-span of between 1666 and 3000 years. Thus, Machiavelli believed that Christianity could come to an end about 150 years after he wrote these sentences, as Strauss (1986, 226) has noted.13 We know that he was not alone in anticipating the fall of Christianity. Machiavellis argument is based on astrologi-cal assumptions shared by many contemporaries. The air of Florence of his time was heavy with apocalyptic visions, and the coming of the counter-Christian religion was anticipated, as well as the com-ing scourge and reform of Christianity itself. The fall of Christianity was predicted to happen at least in 1444 (Haabraz) and 1460 (Abu Mashar), and even Gemistos Plethon14 was reported to have said that Christianity would soon be replaced by a new astral religion not very different from paganism (Parel 1992, 50). The growing inu-ence of the Turks who conquered Constantinopole in 1453 was also undoubtedly acting as a catalysing factor in this respect. Fear of the Turks invasion into Italy is a recurrent theme in Machiavellis writ-ings, and we can be sure that he was not ignorant of the sayings of the astrologers, for he speaks of the anticipated devastation in his car-nival songs (Canti carnascialeschi, De romiti). In Discorsi (I/12) he is even more explicit on the matter, concluding that: he who considers its [i.e. Christianitys] foundations and sees how different its present habit is from them, will conclude that near at hand, beyond doubt, is its fall or its punishment.

The age-old method of reforming the church has been to found new orders or reconstruct the old ones. Machiavelli speaks of these

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

200

reforms in Discorsi and concludes that it is necessary to bring reli-gions and republics occasionally back towards their beginnings:

Ma quanto alle stte, si vede ancora queste rinnovazioni essere neces-sarie, per lo esemplo della nostra religione; la quale, se non fossi stata ritirata verso il suo principio da Santo Francesco e da Santo Domenico, sarebbe al tutto spenta. Perch questi, con la povert e con lo esemplo della vita di Cristo, la ridussono nella mente degli uomini, che gi vi era spenta (Discorsi, III/1).

Machiavelli admires Saints Francis and Dominic because they lived in poverty through the example of Christ. The immanent critique is directed towards those prelates that have forgotten the teachings of Christ and wallow in the wealth they have earned through hypo-critical behaviour. Without the example of these men, the improbity of the prelates and the heads of the Christian religion would have ruined it (ibid.). Machiavellis sympathy for these mendicant orders may perhaps be understood as a part of his crusade against the ruin-ous effects of wealth and luxury. He may also have been thinking of the eulogy to Saint Francis and Saint Dominic and their poverty in Dantes Commedia (Pur., cantos XI-XII). In his Esortazione alla Pen-itenza, Machiavelli again refers to the simplicity of Saint Francis and Saint Jerome.

Penitence, War and Soul

Machiavellis Esortazione alla penitenza is a difcult text for those who think that he was a pagan or an atheist. The text has convinced many scholars to think that he was a devout Catholic in private life. For Roberto Ridol (1963, 253), the sad and pious phrases of the text form the climax of Machiavellis Christian thought. According to Rebhorn, along with Machiavellis pious phrases in private letters, it indicates a general orthodoxy, if not a fervent faith (Rebhorn 1988, 128). Others have interpreted Machiavellis sermon as satirical. Pasquale Villari saw veiled irony in the text, while Benedetto Croce concluded that the whole sermon was una scherzosa cicalata (cf. Cutinelli-Rndina 1998, 280). If we, however, think that Machiavellis sermon is written without irony, we have to explain why he wrote all the other works that are less Christian. If he, in his older days, started to take Christian teaching seriously, why didnt he try to destroy his

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

201

previous anti-Christian writings? There is no evidence that he ever attempted any such action.

The text, which is written in the form of a sermon, was prob-ably written upon request and delivered in a meeting of a confrater-nity composed of lay members.15 This context alone could be an ex-planation for the Christian tone of the text. Machiavellis exhortation singles out two grave sins: ingratitude to God and being unfriendly to ones neighbours. Because into these two vices we often fall, writes Machiavelli, God, the gracious creator has showed us the way for raising ourselves up, which is penitence. Since God forgave David his adultery and murder and Peter his offence of having denied him three times, what sin will God not forgive you, my brothers, if you sincerely resort to penitence, Machiavelli asks his audience. This is the central message of the text: there are no sins that God will not forgive if you resort to repentance, since it is not sin but persistence in sin that makes God unforgiving. It is not possible to go into details here, but the text denitely does not resolve the case of Machiavellis piety.16 While Esortazione is seemingly Christian, its message may very well be that one can easily sin since God forgives those sins if one repents. After all, one has to sin before one is able to repent.

For Machiavelli, religion is a sine qua non of a well-ordered com-munity. Not just any religion, but a religion that is likewise well-ordered and has no disclaimer of earthly pursuits like Christianity. Commenting on Machiavellis analysis of Roman religion, J. Patrick Coby (1999, 66) tells us that for Machiavelli 1) religion is the glue of society and is important to national success, 2) religion is untrue but politically useful to the extent that the rulers feign belief and ma-nipulate the rites, 3) the primary use of religion is the control of the plebeian population, and that 4) religion used militarily is helpful but of less certain value. Rome did benet from religion not because it civilised men through the arts of peace, but because religion made Romans obedient to authority (ibid., 68).

Although Machiavelli claims that religion has often acted as a cloak for bad men who can in security control others with it, it is hard to believe Sullivans (1996, 7) assertion that Machiavelli opens up the possibility that the better alternative for a city would be to dis-pense with religious appeals altogether, thereby eliminating a pow-erful weapon of potential tyrants. According to Sullivan, in Machi-avellis universe the political triumphs over the religious and the religious is not only pernicious, it is wholly superuous (ibid.). But from the fact that in his universe politics triumphs over religion it

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

202

does not follow that religion would be useless. It is precisely the very fact that politics triumphs over religion that makes religion useful.

In Machiavellis view, Christianity, apart from being politically devastating, has also changed the way men behave in war. In the Arte della Guerra, Machiavelli argues that this comes about because the Christian way of living does not impose the same necessity for defending oneself as antiquity did:

perch, allora, gli uomini vinti in guerra o sammazzavano o rima-nevano in perpetuo schiavi, dove menavano la loro vita miseramente; le terre vinte o si desolavano o ne erano cacciati gli abitatori, tolti loro i beni, mandati dispersi per il mondo; tanto che i superati in guerra pa-tivano ogni ultima miseria. Da questo timore spaventati, gli uomini te-nevano gli esercizi militari vivi e onoravano chi era eccellente in quegli. Ma oggi questa paura in maggior parte perduta; de vinti, pochi se ne ammazza; niuno se ne tiene lungamento prigione, perch con facilit si liberano. Le citt, ancora chelle si sieno mille volte ribellate, non si dis-fanno; lasciansi gli uomini ne beni loro, in modo che il maggior male che si tema una taglia; talmente che gli uomini non vogliono sottomettersi agli ordini militari e stentare tuttavia sotto quegli, per fuggire quegli pericoli de quali temono poco. (Arte della guerra, II).

The charitable mechanisms of Christianity that celebrate cloistered metaphysicians more than active men are part of the same ethos that Machiavelli is criticising here. Even though, Machiavelli marvels, civil laws are nothing else than opinions given by the ancient jurists, which, brought into order, teach our present jurists to judge and medicine too is nothing other than the experiments made by the an-cient physicians, on which present physicians base their judgments, not a single prince or republic resorts to the example of the ancients in setting up states, in maintaining governments, in ruling kingdoms, in organising armies and managing war, in executing laws among subjects, in expanding an empire This, says Machiavelli, results from nothing else than the present religion and education, or from the harm done to many Christian provinces and cities by a conceited laziness, as much as from not having a true understanding of books on history, so that as we read we do not draw from them that sense or taste that avour which they really have. (Discorsi, preface).

Above all, writes Machiavelli, one should avoid any half-way measure (tutto la via del mezzo) in treating conquered cities or prisoners of war (Discorsi, II/23). As concerns rebelling cities, it is necessary either to wipe them out or to treat them with kindness.

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

203

Prisoners should be allowed to go away with honour or they should be killed. Adopting any other course is dangerous, because the con-quered immediately think of revenge. Machiavellis advice for con-solidating a divided city is the killing of the leaders of the disorders (Discorsi, III/27). Such decisive actions have in them something great and noble, but mens feebleness in our day, caused by their feeble education (debole educazione) and their slight knowledge of affairs, makes them judge ancient punishments partly inhumane, partly im-possible. Feeble education in Machiavellis vocabulary is a synonym for Christian education. The original debole educazione refers spe-cically to weak education which he identies with Christianity (e.g. in Discorsi, II/2).

Machiavellis comments on warfare aim to establish that Chris-tian ethics prohibits the use of effective means in war and thus brings ruin rather than victory. In his poem DellAmbizione (lines 166-168) he writes that San Marco, to his cost, and perhaps in vain, discovers late that he needs to hold the sword and not the book in his hand. St. Mark is the patron saint of Venice and the lion, his symbol, is normally depicted holding a book in its hand. In times of war, how-ever, the lion is depicted as holding a sword instead of the Bible. This change in imagery could characterise the need to abandon Christian ethics in times of war. In a letter from Verona (7.12.1509) he refers to the same change concluding that the Venetians have found out to their cost that, for holding states, studies and books are not enough. According to Machiavelli, Cosimo de Medici was accustomed to say-ing that gli stati non si tenevono co paternostri in mano, i.e. that states cannot be run with paternosters (Istorie orentine, VII/6). This and other sayings gave ammunition to Cosimos enemies to enable them to say that he loved pi questo mondo che quellaltro (ibid.). The fact that Christianity is not based on the best possible public eth-ics was undoubtedly known among rulers as well.

In his famous letter to Francesco Vettori (16.4.1527) Machiavelli writes: I love my native city more than my soul. Another similar idea can be found in his Arte della Guerra. Praising Cosimo Rucel-lai, the opening words say: I do not know what possession was so much his (not excepting, to go no further, his soul) that for his friends he would not willingly have spent it; I do not know of any under-taking that would have frightened him, if in it he had perceived the good of his native land (Arte della Guerra, I). The third passage with a similar avour is in his Istorie orentine, where Machiavelli praises the heroes of the so-called War of the Eight Saints (1376-1378). He

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

204

writes: So much higher did those citizens then value their city than their souls! (Istorie orentine, III/7). There is a contradiction between the demands of Christianity and of politics, and consequently it is not possible to act politically and to be saved. It is of the highest im-portance to note that Machiavellis adage of the incompatibility of Christian conviction and political action has its predecessor in the bishop of Hippo. His central message is almost identical to the one St. Augustine was purporting a thousand years earlier. According to Augustine, the foundation of politics is not justice but domination by force or the threat of its use. And here, in respect to the foundation of politics, Machiavelli agrees with Augustine,17 but his solution is not resignation but virt. For Augustine, Christians are to use (uti), not to love (frui, literally to enjoy), the state on their pilgrimage towards salvation. The Christian does obey the state and its laws, not least because he would not set himself up against the inscrutable ways of Gods working in history. Loving the temporal state, however, is an-other thing. This is where Machiavelli adopts another course. Some have claimed that Machiavelli aimed at some sort of reinterpretation of Christianity, but it is very hard to interpret Christianity so that it would exalt temporal states over the heavenly kingdom.

Concluding Postscript

Markus Fischer (2000, 204-205) has suggested that the chasm Machia-velli believed he had discovered between the necessities of politics and traditional morality is more apparent than real. In fact, it could be claimed that political life has always digested all the elements of truth contained in Machiavelli, since many Machiavellian practices are in fact ethically grounded. Torturing terrorists who are known to have intentionally risked innocent lives by placing a bomb whose whereabouts they refuse to reveal can be ethical, since it aims to save a large number of innocent lives. Similarly it may be right to bribe already corrupt public ofcials if by doing so one can make justice prevail. However, according to Fischer, Machiavelli overestimated the effectiveness of unjust means, and since attaining political goals without doing harm is often more difcult than resorting to straight-forward violence and deception, the truly prudent man needs to be a good deal smarter than a Machiavellian prince.

Fischer may be right about the permanent Machiavellism of polit-ical life, but Machiavelli never claimed that all of this was his inven-

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

205

tion. Political actors have always understood the harsh necessities of extreme situations, but Christianity has not. This is what Machiavelli was trying to say. Nor did Machiavelli ever claim that it would not be smarter to attain goals without resorting to immoral means. What he did claim was that one cannot always avoid the employment of such methods, and that such means are often more efcient and ex-pedient. Machiavellis ideal ruler aims not so much to maximise his power as to minimise his dependence. There should be no principle or character trait that constrains his ability to respond to his circum-stances (cf. Grant 1997, 55). Religion, and especially Christianity, is certainly a hindrance in princes quest for autonomy.

In a sense, Machiavelli occupies a position in the history of prac-tical reason roughly analogous to that of Descartes in the realm of theoretical reason (cf. Garver 1987, 3). Descartes initiated a story of progress from ignorance to knowledge whose success and costs have only recently been questioned. Machiavelli initiated a similar process, but whereas Descartes liberated theoretical reason from the traditional restraints of custom and belief, Machiavellis innovative treatment of prudence seemed to remove the restraints that tradition had placed on immoral, selsh and corrupt behaviour. Unlike the prudence of Aristotle, Machiavellis practical reason does not entail intrinsic directedness towards virtuous ends. While the autonomy of theoretical reason at least initially seemed to be an advance from darkness to light, from doubt to certainty, the autonomy of practical reason has always been felt to be a mixed blessing. The Machiavellian practical reason is not guided by morality, or by the recta ratio, and as such it is more of an instrumental nature and capable of calculat-ing on the brinks of appropriate behaviour. Machiavellis prudence is also situational; what is reasonable and necessary in one situation is not so in another. Thus, for him, prudence oxymoronically consists in knowing when it is necessary to break even prudential rules. At the same time, he seems to reduce human freedom to the sheer anticipa-tion of necessity. It is not hard to see why this has disquieted many moralists ever since.

Machiavellis new practical reason changed also the role of rhetoric in political life. As Victoria Kahn (1994, 9) has argued, Ma-chiavellis rhetorical politics dramatised a tension between a techni-cal and prudential conception of rhetoric that is at the heart of Re-naissance humanist culture. Rhetoric in this period was conceived of either being an ethically and ideologically neutral technique of argumentation or as the embodiment of a faculty of practical rea-

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

206

soning or prudential deliberation that is tied to ethical norms. If the rst conception of rhetoric as a neutral tool gave rise to consider-able anxiety concerning the immoral ends to which rhetoric might be put, the second prudential conception offered the response that the good rhetorician is of necessity a good man. Though Renaissance hu-manists regularly acknowledged the possible abuse of rhetoric, they just as often attempted to dene rhetoric in such a way that it would preclude such immorality. Machiavelli borrowed from the humanist notion of prudential rhetoric, even though he criticised such rhetoric for its subordination to ethics, that is, for not being practical enough. Focusing on practical reasoning and action that is not constrained by ethical norms, Machiavelli attempted to make rhetoric and pru-dential deliberation generate a new set of priorities in the domain of politics. Yet, in taking the generative possibilities of a practical conception of rhetoric more seriously than did the humanists them-selves, Machiavelli paradoxically appeared to realise the humanists worst fears about a technical or instrumental conception of rhetoric: its ethical indeterminacy, its concern with success, its use for the purpose of force and fraud, violence and misrepresentation (ibid.). According to Kahn, Machiavellis Renaissance readers saw that his rhetorical politics engaged a constellation of topics that epitomised the tensions within humanist rhetoric: the relation of imitation to misrepresentation, persuasion to coercion, means to ends, intention to effect, demonic exibility to allegorical stability, and virtue or virt to success. These topics amounted to a questioning of the Ciceronian ideal of harmony between the honestum and the utile - they registered a tension between these terms, and an anxiety that the good might be sacriced to the expedient or that rhetoric might become an instru-ment of force and fraud.

Some of Machiavellis near-contemporaries were perhaps aware that the art of the politician is not the most Christian of professions. Nevertheless, some of them, especially those under the inuence of Renaissance neo-Platonism, responded to this problem very differ-ently. Marsilio Ficino, the leading Platonist of the era, held accord-ing to Guicciardinis Dialogo, that when cities are well instituted and are governed well, good men should as far as possible avoid getting involved in politics and public affairs (Guicciardini 1994, 51). This Platonic otherworldliness and insistence on supererogation as the ruling political value found no favour with Machiavelli. His critique of Christianity rests mainly on its disclaimer of earthly pursuits. The proud indolence (ozio) of Christianity, derivative of the Stoic otio and

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

207

even the Platonic and Aristotelian schole, which permitted the life of ataraxia and contemplation (cf. Springborg 1992, 213), has in Machi-avellis view turned the world effeminate and left it over as prey for wicked men who can in security control it.18

The thought that Christianity and politics do not t together with-out some damage to either the one or the other is actually genuinely Christian. It is a central theme in the writings of Augustine, but it was abandoned when, during the subsequent centuries, the Church made a shift from pessimism to optimism (with the exception of Luther, a deep student of Augustine, of course). In essence, then, Machiavelli remained within the framework of Christianity when he maintained that Christians should not meddle with stately affairs and statesmen should not worry about the fate of their souls in the afterlife. Politics is a game played by the damned. Both Augustine and Machiavelli knew that very well. We can conclude with the words of Max We-ber:

Wer das Heil seiner Seele und die Rettung anderer Seelen sucht, der sucht das nicht auf dem Wege der Politik, die ganz andere Aufgaben hat, solche, die nur mit Gewalt zu lsen sind.

This passage from Webers Politik als Beruf (1992,248) says it all. Who-ever seeks the salvation of his soul stays, and should stay, aloof from political matters. This is precisely what Machiavelli was trying to say.

NOTES

1. Whether Machiavelli was an atheist, a devout Catholic, or whatever, is irrelevant in terms of the effect his writings had. That he criticised Christianity is a fact why he did so, is another question. If something must be said of his personal religious life, I agree with Anthony Parel when he says that Machiavelli was, without doubt, a cul-tural Christian (Parel 1992, 62). He used Christian expressions in his private letters and he certainly considered Christianity as nostra religione, but his cultural commitment to Christianity does not involve any other commitments, namely doctrinal ones.2. Excluding, of course, his Esortazione alla penitenza.3. But if we look at the way Machiavelli says he wants to read the Bible, we notice that Strauss might not be so mistaken after all (in this matter). Machiavelli alludes to the instance of Moses and the Israelites when discussing how a reformer gets rid of the envious, in chapter XXX of the third book of the Discorsi, and writes that: He who reads the Bible intelligently sees that if Moses was to put his laws and regulations into effect, he was forced to kill countless men who, moved by nothing else than envy, were opposed to his plans. His strategy is to read the Bible intelligently - sensatamente. John Geerken has suggested that this means presumably not reading it in a devotional,

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

208

liturgical, or exegetical manner, but in effect politically (Geerken 1999, 580). According to Geerken, the references to biblical gures in the works of Machiavelli indicate that for him the Bible was not exempt from a political way of reading it, too, could yield the reasons for human actions and causes of hatred and factionalism etc, which was, for Machiavelli, the whole idea of writing histories.4. As Hans Baron (1968) has argued, many a Renaissance man was so convinced of his own inferiority compared to the ancients that their self-condence and productivity were weakened as a result of their militant classicism. Some, like Niccol Niccoli, were so deeply convinced of the futility of any attempt to equal the perfection of the classical models which they admired, that during their entire life they never published a single line. In other words, they were perfectly aware of the impossibility of strict imitation - instead of imitatio the battle-cry of the humanists was aemulatio.5. Machiavelli chose Switzerland because according to him the Swiss oggi sono, solo, popoli che vivono, e quanto alla religione e quanto agli ordini militari, secondo gli antichi (ibid.).6. The main debate concerned the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. When, at the request of the Greek emperor John Palaeologus, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and nancial help as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one principle and from one cause. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy of the Pope, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. Many eastern princes, however, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence and deserted the position.7. Renaissance literature often treated friars as examples of the condence men or beffa-tori who pursue various ends, mainly food, sex, political and religious power, wealth and authority (cf. Rebhorn 1988, 9).8. La predica io non la udi, perch io non uso simile pratiche (Letter to Vettori, 19.12.1513).9. Note that even Messer Nicia, who is a fool, tells in Mandragola (V.2) how he wanted to touch with my hands how the thing was going, for I am not used to being made to take reies for lanterns (an expression meaning to make what does not exist appear to exist).10. The only exception is Gilberts Chief Works and Others, which uses the word mis-erable.11. He does not say anything of the fourth crusade, which was directed towards Con-stantinople in 1204 by Enrico Dandolo, the doge of Venice. The pillage of Christian Constantinople is one of the major causes why it later (1453) fell to the Turks.12. Some, like Foster (1965, 51), believe that Dante never renounced Christianity or was a heretic. His sympathy for Averroist doctrines can perhaps be explained by the ten-sion he felt between faith and reason. In Western thought philosophy was made ancil-lary to theology but Averroes, who started from the authority of the Koran instead of the Bible, subordinated religion to philosophy. The compromise between the two ex-tremes was associated with the so-called Latin Averroists (most famous of whom was Sieger), who taught that reason can lead the philosopher even to the point of specula-tive unorthodoxy, providing that he be prepared to admit in practice that his rational conclusions might be false from the theologians point of view (ibid., 50).13. The calculation is, however, inaccurate. Machiavelli does not say that the changes would occur in regular intervals. Thus, it would be possible for a religion to change e.g. three times in ten years, if the next change would occur after 4990 years.

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

209

14. Plethon (1355-1452) was a Neoplatonist of Greek origin, who essentially introduced Plato to the Western world while attending the Council of Florence in 1438-1439.15. These kinds of confraternities were common in Florence and they were divided broadly into ve categories (cf. Henderson 1994, 33-37). The laudesi and the disciplinati formed the two main types of devotional company in central Italy in the later Middle Ages. The main activity of the former was singing of lauds for Virgin Mary and the saints. Its signicance was that the lauds were written and performed in Italian, thus providing the laity the opportunity to understand religious hymns. The latter com-panies were composed of voluntary agellants imitating the suffering of Christ and stressing the need to repent ones sins and to resort to penitence. The third main cat-egory was constituted by the large charitable societies, which provided relief to the poor in the city. The names varied across Europe, as well as the aim of the institutions. In Florence, for instance, there emerged more specialised confraternities helping e.g. condemned criminals (company of the Tempio, founded in 1354) or the poveri vergog-nosi, the respectable poor too proud to beg (Buonomini di S. Martino, founded in 1442). The fteenth century saw the growth in importance of two other types of lay fraterni-ties: the fanciulli, or the boys, imitating the adult agellant societies to which the boys could graduate at a certain age, and the artisan companies, providing devotional and social services for their members. The latter were opposed by Florentine regimes because they were suspicious that the disenfranchised workers (sottoposti) might use these as a front for trade union activities to improve their salaries and working condi-tions. Machiavelli, as his father before him, had been a member of one or more of these devotional companies (ibid., 437). Similarly, his sermon is meant to be delivered at a meeting of the disciplinati.16. For a deeper analysis of the text, see Ciliotta-Rubery (1997).17. Augustine and Machiavelli also have in common the pessimistic view of human beings (cf. Prezzolini 1970; Qviller 1996). According to the Renaissance astrology, some planets are benign and some are malignant. One would expect them to produce an equal amount of good and bad people. Yet Machiavellis people are without excep-tion bad. As Qviller maintains, the easiest way is to accept that Machiavellis negative anthropology does not follow from astrology or the theory of bodily humours related to it. The nearest parallel to Machiavellis anthropology is to be found in Manichaeism and its Christian counterpart, the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. On Machiavel-lis anthropology, see also Huovinen 1951. 18. Like Machiavelli, some Renaissance thinkers contested Christian morality in stately matters. Guicciardini (1994, 158-159) juxtaposes his ragione e uso degli stati, reason and practice of states, with Christian morality and concludes that it is impossible to control governments and states, if one wants to hold them as they are held today, according to the precepts of Christian law. Therefore, one would need always to murder all the Pisans captured in the war, to decrease the number of our enemies and make the rest more timid (ibid., 157). In 1499, the Florentine government decided to behead condottiere Paolo Vitelli without any proof of his alleged treasonable nego-tiations with Florences enemies, mainly because he would never have forgiven the Florentines his imprisonment and would have been a powerful enemy. The pre-emp-tive strike was thought to be t for the situation, because one cannot use the usual standards of fairness in affairs of state (cf. Gilbert 1965, 43). In the case of Vitelli, the worldly wisdom of Renaissance political thought celebrated its greatest triumph. Gen-erally, however, the Florentines were not inclined to take an exclusively religious or mundane attitude towards political decisions they delighted in the use of human ragione, but the rst advice was always to turn to God (ibid.).

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

210

REFERENCES

Primary sources

Machiavelli, Niccol (1998): Tutte le opere storiche, politiche e letterarie. Roma, Newton & Compton.

Secondary Sources

Andrew, Edward (1990): The Foxy Prophet: Machiavelli versus Machiavelli on Ferdinand the Catholic, History of Political Thought, Vol. XI, Is. 3, Autumn 1990, 409-422.Baron, Hans (1968): The Querelle of the Ancients and the Moderns as a Prob-lem for Renaissance Scholarship. In Renaissance Essays, ed. Paul O. Kristeller and Philip P. Wiener. New York, Harper & Row, 95-114.Berlin, Isaiah (1980): The Originality of Machiavelli. In Against the Current, New York, Penguin, 25-79.Ciliotta-Rubery, Andrea (1997): A Question of Piety: Machiavellis Treat-ment of Christianity in the Exhortation to Penitence, in Douglas Kries (ed.): Piety and Humanity. Essays on Religion and Early Modern Political Philosophy, Oxford, Rowman & Littleeld, 11-44.Coby, J. Patrick (1999): Machiavellis Romans. Liberty and Greatness in the Dis-courses on Livy. Lanham, Lexington.Cutinelli-Rndina, Emanuele (1998): Chiesa e religione in Machiavelli. Pisa, Is-tituti editoriali e poligraci internazionali.Dante (1965): La Divina Commedia. Milano, Mursia.Fischer, Markus (2000): Well-Ordered License. On the Unity of Machiavellis Thought. Lanham, Lexington Books.Forte, Juan Manuel (2000): Politicising Religion. Politics, History and Christian-ity in Machiavellis Thought. Dissertation, European University Institute, Flor-ence.Foster, Kenelm (1965): Religion and Philosophy in Dante. In The Mind of Dante, ed. U. Limentani. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 47-78.Garver, Eugene (1987): Machiavelli and the History of Prudence. Madison, Uni-versity of Wisconsin Press. Geerken, John H. (1999): Machiavellis Moses and Renaissance Politics. Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (4), 579-595.Gilbert, Felix (1965): Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Politics and History in Six-teenth-Century Florence. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Grant, Ruth W. (1997): Hypocrisy and Integrity. Machiavelli, Rousseau, and the Ethics of Politics. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.de Grazia, Sebastian (1989): Machiavelli in Hell. Princeton, NJ, Princeton Uni-versity Press.Guicciardini, Francesco (1994): Dialogue on the Government of Florence. Cam-bridge, Cambridge University Press.

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

211

Haydn, Hiram (1950): The Counter-Renaissance. New York, Scribner.Henderson, John (1994): Piety and Charity in Late Medieval Florence. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Hulliung, Mark (1983): Citizen Machiavelli. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Huovinen, Lauri (1951): Das Bild vom Menschen im politischen Denken Niccol Machiavellis. Helsinki, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B, 74 (2).Kahn, Victoria (1994): Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1979): Renaissance Thought and Its Sources. New York, Columbia University Press.Lukes, Timothy J. (1984): To Bamboozle with Goodness. The Political Ad-vantages of Christianity in the Thought of Machiavelli. Renaissance and Ref-ormation 8 (November), 266-277.Manseld, Harvey C. (1979): Machiavellis New Modes and Orders. A Study of the Discourses on Livy. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.Najemy, John M. (1999): Papirius and the Chickens, or Machiavelli on the Necessity of Interpreting Religion. Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (4), 659-681.Parel, Anthony J. (1992): The Machiavellian Cosmos. New Haven, Yale Univer-sity Press.Prezzolini, Giuseppe (1967): Machiavelli. A study of the life, work, inuence and originality of an obscure Florentine civil servant who has become our contemporary. New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Prezzolini, Giuseppe (1970): The Christian Roots of Machiavellis Moral Pessimism. Review of National Literatures 1 (Spring), 26-37.Qviller, Bjrn (1996): The Machiavellian Cosmos. History of Political Thought 17 (3), 326-353.Rebhorn, Wayne A. (1988): Foxes and Lions, Machiavellis Condence Men. Itha-ca, Cornell University Press.Ridol, Roberto (1963): The Life of Niccol Machiavelli. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.Skinner, Quentin (1978): The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vols. 1-2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Skinner, Quentin (2000): Machiavelli. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Ox-ford University Press.Springborg, Patricia (1992): Western Republicanism and the Oriental Prince. Cambridge, Polity.Strauss, Leo (1958): Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago, The University of Chi-cago Press.Strauss, Leo (1970): Machiavelli and Classical Literature. Review of National Literatures 1 (Spring), 7-25.Strauss, Leo (1986): Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy. Chicago, The Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

PAUL-ERIK KORVELA

212

Sullivan, Vickie B. (1996): Machiavellis Three Romes. Religion, Human Liberty and Politics Reformed. DeKalb, Northern Illinois University Press.Ullmann, Walter (1977): Medieval Foundations of Renaissance Humanism. Lon-don, Paul Elek.Weber, Max (1992/1919): Politik als Beruf. In Gesammelte politische Schriften. Tbingen, Mohr, pp. 242-248.

MACHIAVELLIS CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY

213